FREE CASE EVALUATION | 1-800-260-0784

If you got hurt during a slip and fall incident, and then decides to pursue a lawsuit should stand prepared to prove that someone was negligent.

Typically, the owner or controller of the property where the fall took place has demonstrated negligence.

Still, due to the number of danger points on such a property, the owner might be the victim of someone else’s negligence.

• The parking lot outside of a business should be even. What group of workers was responsible for keeping that parking lot even?
• The sidewalk that goes into a given building ought to be even and free of any obstruction. Someone should be placed in charge of ensuring the maintenance of the sidewalk’s danger-free condition.
• A victim can help to prove his or her case by taking a picture of the spot where the fall took place.

Necessary elements of a slip and fall case

• Proof that the defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiff
• Proof that the defendant breached that duty of care
• Evidence that the plaintiff was injured
• Evidence that the plaintiff’s actions were a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury

Possible defenses

Personal Injury Lawyer in St John’s knows that the dangerous condition had made its appearance just moments before the plaintiff fell and became injured. The property on which the incident took place had a natural condition that put in danger those that entered the same property. This defense would only work if the defendant had tried to warn guests and trespassers about the danger. The owner/controller of the property had arranged for routine checks, and the sharing of the results from each checking exercise.

Actions by plaintiff that could contribute to a fall’s occurrence

Plaintiff was running in area where it was safer to walk: For example, plaintiff had been running on the floor of a grocery store. Plaintiff had ignored posted signs, and had wandered off an established and well-marked path. The signs might have been meant to serve as a warning, a warning about the existence of a danger, in the area beyond the any posted sign.

The plaintiff had become distracted: The plaintiff was texting on a hand-held device, when he or she slipped and fell. Alternatively, the plaintiff’s eyes were focused on something in the surroundings, rather than on the path before his or her eyes.

The plaintiff was not wearing a sturdy pair of shoes. Alternatively, the plaintiff’s shoe had become untied or unbuckled, and no effort was made to fix that particular problem. Recently, plaintiffs’ masks have added to the list of items that might cause a fall. Certainly, that would be the case if the mask were worn under a pair of glasses. Minus a cleaning aid, those glasses would become foggy.